Deepak Patil vs State Of Karnataka

Venkatesh Naik T, J

Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent – State.

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.122/2024 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Yallapur, Uttara Kannada District for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 395 read with Section 34 of IPC.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

On 23.05.2024, the first informant and his friend were travelling in their car. The present petitioner and others wrongfully restrained the vehicle and first informant, took quarrel with them, assaulted the first informant and his friend, vandalized their car, took Rs.25,00,000/- cash, three mobile phones and a Baleno car. Hence, the first informant lodged the complaint. This led to registration of the FIR and the investigation.

During the course of investigation, this petitioner– accused No.2 is arrested and in turn he has been remanded to judicial custody.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offences. Now the investigation is completed and the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet against the accused persons. It is contended that there is discrepancy as to the stolen cash of Rs.25,00,000/- from the car, in the first information and in the further statement. Though spot mahazar was drawn on 23.05.2024, the missing of cash of Rs.25,00,000/- has not been mentioned in the mahazar. As per the spot panchanama, it was conducted at 01:55 p.m. on 28.06.2024. However, at the time of mahazar, when the photographs were taken, the lighting conditions were notably dark. This raises serious doubts about the accuracy and reliability of the procedure followed by the Investigating Officer during the course of the investigation. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Sambaragi, Athani Taluk and he is ready to abide by any conditions that are imposed by this Court. Thus, the learned counsel prayed to allow the petition.

The learned HCGP for the respondent – State has filed the statement of objections contending that this is a successive bail petition of the petitioner and the earlier petitions of the petitioner were dismissed by this Court in Crl.P.No.102282/2024 and Crl.P.No.103358/2024. The petitioner is the habitual offender and there are three cases registered against him. There is prima facie allegation against the petitioner. If he released on bail he may tamper the witnesses and hamper the trial. The huge amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was recovered from the possession of accused No.2/petitioner. Thus, she prayed for rejection of the petition.

Having perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner and other accused persons were prevented the first informant and his friend while they were travelling in a Baleno car. They took quarrel with them, assaulted the first informant and his friend, vandalized their car by breaking the window glass and took Rs.25,00,000/- cash and Baleno car.

As per the contents of first information, the accused persons assaulted the first informant and his friend, took three mobile phones and key of the Baleno car and the first informant has not at all refer or mentioned about missing of cash of Rs.25,00,000/- in the complaint. Later, in the further statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, the factum of missing of Rs.25,00,000/- has been mentioned. Even in the spot mahazar drawn on 23.05.2024, the Investigating Officer has not referred to about missing of cash of Rs.25,00,000/-, which is admittedly a huge amount.

From perusal of the seizure mahazar dated 28.06.2024 allegedly drawn in the house of accused No.2/petitioner, a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was recovered at the instance of the petitioner. As per the recovery mahazar, it was drawn in the broad day light i.e., at 1:55 p.m. However, the photographs submitted by the Investigating Officer clearly reveal that it was drawn in the dark night. It shows that there is discrepancy in the procedure followed by the Investigating Officer and in the statement of first informant. No doubt, this Court rejected the bail petition of present petitioner twice, it does not mean that the petitioner is not entitled for bail. In fact, the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judicial pronouncements held that, “bail is a rule and the jail is an exception”. At this stage, the Court cannot conduct a mini trial and scan the entire prosecution papers. At this stage, only prima facie has to be seen.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted to the jurisdictional Court, but the committal Court has not committed the matter to the Court of Sessions for trial. Therefore, there is likelihood of delay in commencement of trial in the Court of Sessions. Under such circumstances, the petitioner would be languished in jail.

Learned High Court Government Pleader though submitted that the petitioner is habitual offender, but, the record reveals, that out of three cases the accused has been acquitted in two cases of the alleged offences.

It is well established principles of law that, while considering the bail application, the Court has to consider the nature of offences, circumstances in which offences committed, position and status of the accused, likelihood of he fleeing away from the justice, repeating same offences, tampering with witnesses, character and antecedents of the accused. Further the law is well settled that, while disposing of the bail petition, Court need not scan the prosecution papers and hold a mini trial. Keeping all these factors in mind and careful perusal of the entire material on record, this Court is of the opinion that, this is a fit case to grant bail. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The criminal petition is allowed. The petitioner / accused No.2 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in C.C.No.516/2024 (Crime No.0122/2024 of Yallapura Police Station) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 392 read with Section 34 of IPC, on the following conditions.

(i) The petitioner / accused No.2 shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

(ii) One of the sureties shall furnish title deed in respect of his immovable property before the jurisdictional Court at the time of release on bail.

(iii) The petitioner shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses.

(iv) The petitioner shall attend the trial Court regularly.

(v) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without permission.

(vi) The petitioner shall not involve in the similar offences.

Violation of any one of the conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of the bail.

NOTE: The above observation made herein is only for disposal of the bail petition and the trial Court shall not influenced by this order, while disposing the matter on merits.